So, if you paid good money to see the not so hot Oblivion back in April when it came out, I’m betting you were surprised as hell to see a TV or internet commercial about two months later advertising the home video version coming… on August 2, 2013, less than FOUR MONTHS after the theatrical release. Wow. Granted, this is the day and age of some minor films getting a direct to download/view option at the same time as their theatrical launches or a direct to video as well as a theatrical release. But I believe that Oblivion is the fastest “A” budget title to land on video (feel free to correct me, movie guys). I didn’t see it in a theater and don’t plan to buy it on a disc (yup, I’m not a Cruise fan these days, sorry), but I have to almost feel bad for the guy (almost… but not really) having to see his big, big “blockbuster” go the “please bump up my take on the gross” route or whatever in less than the usual time it takes for a film so expensive to make show up at retail… and at a “special price” at that.
Granted, I’m betting this holiday season sees a bunch of other would-be blockbusters popping up as potential purchases, primarily any flick that did disappointing dollars that needs to generate those necessary home video profits around the globe (provided people have money left over from buying emergency supplies what with all the planet falling apart at the seams for real stuff going on). On the other hand, for me it begs the question why anyone would want to go out to the movies in the first place other than to pay more to see IMAX or other special versions of some films. Given the time and expense of getting out to a theater, dealing with the usual morons that make movie watching live a pain in the rear and other factors that make me want to hang out by my mailbox (or in front of the cable box eight months or a year later because I don’t run my life by a movie clock), my question isn’t a joke at all.
That and I’m SO not a fan of streaming films to a tiny, eyeball flaying screen or even a bigger laptop or monitor for a few reasons (two of them being you never get to see special features unless you view them elsewhere online and most of these streams aren’t as good a quality as they need to be). But hey, it’s the FUTURE, right – all of that stuff doesn’t matter because we’re supposed to just be happy we can see this stuff at all anywhere on anything more powerful than a microwave. Blech. At this point, I’m about to Scotchlite the long wall in the living room here and sell a kidney so I can buy a decent projector. More on that in a bit, as I’ve seen a few cool projectors lately… I just need to figure out who wants my old kidney…
"DESTROY ALL FANBOYS!" 
Going to the movies has become so expensive, and the viewing conditions in my own basement have become so good, that I no longer rush out to a theater to see every movie I want to see. Certain movies, like Hugo, Life of Pi and Pacific Rim MUST be seen on a big screen, and in 3D. But I no longer feel the need to see films like Silver Linings Playbook, or even Lincoln, in an actual movie theater. Ditto with action films that I’m not genuinely excited about. I’m sure that Oblivion plays better on a big screen, but I am willing to sacrifice a perfect Oblivion experience for a low-key, convenient one.
LikeLike
Amusingly enough, as I was typing that post in the library, some nosy but nice guy walks up because he happened to be facing my screen from a few feet away and we end up talking about movie prices. He’d just come back from dropping something like $70 for him his wife and his kids to see Planes (including snacks) and not one of them liked that film (the kids were asleep by about halfway in!). I tend to wait it out the usual eight months or so for the home video release or catch stuff close to home where it’s a smaller theater with a $4 – $6 difference in prices. I’m not a HUGE fan of 3D and think IMAX is too gimmicky (and tickets way overpriced because of that) as a good movie should hold up without those additions (and not everyone can see 3D).
LikeLike
I’m not a big fan of 3D either. It seems to me that if the director is really good (Scorcesse, Lee, Del Toro, Cameron, Speilberg) they instinctively know how to use the technology for maximum effect. But there aren’t too many of those filmmakers around. All the second-rate 3D stuff is diluting whatever potential the technology had, and I’m predicting right now that it turns out to be a fad—again.
LikeLike
Well, I was around during the second 3D era (the early to mid-1980’s) and can safely say that it’s a fad but this time out, it’s bought some better and better looking films that really aren’t “better” because of the newer and improved technology. 3DTV isn’t catching fire as predicted, but here we go with the big 4K TV phase on the way and more enforced evolution for some who always by into that stuff.
Well, as long as the classics stay safe, I’m fine with that. If I hear of Citizen Kane or 2001 getting 3D-ified, I’m getting me a lead coated baseball bat and a bus ticket to Hollywood…;^P
LikeLike
If the filmmaker is alive, and approves of the 3D transfer, fine. Scorcesse says that he wishes he could have made all of his films in 3D. But a retrofitted Wizard of Oz is coming out soon, and that is wrong. Period.
Did you hear that James Cameron is making a trilogy of sequels to Avatar, and that 20th Century Fox is spending over a billion dollars on it? A lot of people have a lot invested in this technology.
Avatar was great. Hugo, Life of Pi and Pacific Rim were great. I thought that Baz Luhrman’s Gatsby was close to an abomination, but the 3D looked really good and helped to tell the story.
Almost everything in Hollywood today is surface glitz. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with a remake; just tell me the story in a way I’ve never heard, and show it to me in a way I’ve never seen. And I will come to your theater.
LikeLike
I saw that Scorcese comment somewhere and laughed because I can’t see Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Goodfellas, The Departed and most of his work in (or needing) 3D. Hugo was great as were the films you mentioned because they were designed around 3D and with it in mind. Now, if he were to do a sci-fi or horror film… yeah, I’d be all over seeing how he’d work with the technology.
The WIzard of OZ really doesn’t need it and yeah, that annoyed the hell out of me when I heard the news. This is like the “colorization” era when it was deemed a great idea to take old B+W flicks and add computer coloring to them. That was a disaster of epic proportions and I recall many fans and some directors not being thrilled at all about it.
As for Avatar… welll… I liked it better when it was one of many old westerns it was derived from. I wasn’t floored by the story at all (it was a wee bit too predictable for me), but man, it did look REALLY great. The sequels will make a load of money because Jim knows his way around a camera and has always been a pioneer in terms of getting his FX teams to do their best work. Although (heh), I still LOVE the practical effects work on Aliens and The Terminator because you can see mistakes that make the work look hand-made…
LikeLike
Pre-CGI effects work—especially stop-motion animation—imparted such charm and fascination to those older fantasies. Everything was made my human hands, and brought to life by human hands. Good special effects were like little magic shows; they looked a bit creaky, and you didn’t believe they were real for a second, but you wanted to know the secret of how they were brought to life.
In a sense the CGI in Oz: The Great and Powerful looks much, much better than the practical effects in Return to Oz, but somehow we don’t buy Raimi’s world, because everything is too pristine. Reality is full of chance. Reality is full of chinks. Until the wielders of CGI understand this, thier work will be cold and hollow.
LikeLike
I like the CG work in both Neill Blomkamp films (District 9 and Elysium) because you can see the FX team allowing for little mistakes and making their work look “used” and beat to hell in the right spots. I also appreciate those films that use CG lightly or well enough to be believable (skies and big outdoor panoramas) upon multiple viewings.
LikeLike
Do you mean that you’ve seen Elysium, or are you just talking about the trailer? If you have seen it, is it good? It’s one of two movies I’ve pinned my hopes to this summer (the other, Pacific Rim, did not disappoint).
It’s always great when CGI is integrated with physical reality. The two examples I always point to are the facial expressions of the Wild Things, and the deformed half of Harvey Dent’s face in The Dark Knight.
LikeLike
I’ll be seeing Elysium tomorrow, but between all the footage online and a friend who saw it at a screening already says it’s really good, I’m sold (although he thought there was “too much action” in the latter half, which made me chuckle a bit because the bulk of the trailers make that a selling point). He noted that the CG was really spectacular in that it’s divided into the earth sequences which are gritty and realistic looking “used future” stuff and up on Elysium where things are almost perfect because the space station is supposed to reflect that “reality” of a “perfect” society. You can’t go wrong with a Syd Mead design, that’s for sure…
LikeLike
Going to the cinema is something I don’t even bother to think about now, as I’m sick and tired of the consistently turgid selection of diarrhea that Hollywood spoon-feeds to the public. Family friendly sequels, remakes and comic book movies with a few dull comedy vehicles thrown in for bad measure, all aimed at a conditioned generation of shallow and lazy teenagers. And I’m bored of seeing Spielberg, Cameron, Stone, Scott, Scorcese etc. still there because of the innovative classics they used to produce, now churning out mediocre garbage just like the rest of them. The hype around what’s coming out at the cinema just seems completely contrived, with a wall of bullshit surrounding every review. When you’ve got Paranormal Activity being regarded as a serious horror movie, Skyfall being hailed as the greatest Bond movie ever and so many superhero films that I (even as a comic collector) can’t tell the difference between any of them, I really can’t be bothered to invest any money in their nonsense. Especially when here in the UK we have no film industry that supports our own culture’s productions and the cost to go to the pictures is around £13 ($20) and above just to witness more overly processed and unimaginative drivel. I’m more interested in HBO series because they’re riskier, trust in the audience’s level of intellect and make use of talent instead of constricting it like a greedy fat python. To be honest I only see movies these days as worth watching as free pirated copies and then buying on DVD if they’re actually good, because if I were to even pay half the ticket price for every insultingly banal film I watch then I’d feel as if I’d just been conned by a moron.
Sorry for butting in with utter negativity over the whole matter but as a movie lover I really feel as though they’ve killed the cinema for me. There are more absorbing titles that have been released straight to DVD than on the big screen and no matter how many 3D/ CGI/ Star studded/ Review endorsed hits that I’m told there is by the media, I’m very rarely impressed by any of them. I may give credit to the effects team, the cinematographer, the stunt guys etc. but smoke and mirrors are just that. After the usually overly long running time, it’s a struggle to recall one scene from whatever it is that I’ve just been viewing.
LikeLike
Cinema is indeed in a downward spiral, but I don’t believe it’s come to the place you say it is just yet. Yes, the good ones are getting fewer and farther between, but last year I loved a number of mainstream films: Zero Dark Thirty, Lincoln (Speilberg in top form), Silver Linings Playbook, Life of Pi, and yes, Cloud Atlas, which I feel got a bad rap. There are always indies to enjoy; Beasts of the Southern Wild is a wonderful film, Amour is a work of extreme genius (though it’s so depressing I would hesitate to recommend it to most people), and Joss Wheadon’s Much Ado About Nothing is my favorite adaptation of a Shakespeare comedy. Hugo and Life of Pi are two of my favorite movies of all time, period. Plus, Hollywood is making movie musicals again, with an emphasis on more serious, plot-driven musicals (Stephen Sondheim’s time has finally arrived). Chris Nolan’s Dark Knight Trilogy is pop entertainment at its pinnacle, and his Inception is one of the best SF films ever. Also, I loved Casino Royale and Skyfall… I don’t know if they are the best 007’s of all time, but they successfully reinvented and reinvigorated the franchise.
If there are less films to enjoy than there used to be, that’s OK; it gives me more time to read and write. But going to the movies is still one of my greatest pleasures in life, and I don’t think that’s going to change for a while.
LikeLike